THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 8, 2018
The Standing Senate Committee on Transport and
Communications, to which was referred Bill S-245, An Act to declare the
Trans Mountain Pipeline Project and related works to be for the general
advantage of Canada, met this day at 9:30 a.m. to give consideration to
the bill.
Senator Patricia Bovey (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Honourable senators, I call to order this meeting of
the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications.
My name is Pat Bovey, deputy chair of the committee.
Our chair is out of town today. The other deputy chair and I have been sharing
the responsibilities when our chair is not here, so it fell to me today.
[English]
I am Pat Bovey, deputy chair of the committee. Our
chair is out of town today. The other deputy chair and I have been sharing the
responsibilities when our chair is not here, so it fell to me today.
[Translation]
This morning, our committee is continuing its study of
Bill S-245, the Trans Mountain Pipeline Project Act.
We have two panels of witnesses today. From our first
panel, I would like to welcome Mr. Benjamin Dachis, Associate Director of
Research at the C.D. Howe Institute.
[English]
We also have Dr. Jack Mintz, President’s Fellow
at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy. We are having trouble
connecting with him. He will be connecting with us by video. Dr. Mintz is
a member of the Order of Canada since 2015 for his contributions as an adviser
on fiscal and tax policy.
I will be asking Dr. Dachis to speak first. When
Dr. Mintz is able to join us, we will hear from him, but he only has until
10:15 a.m. We will do a bit of dancing, if we may.
Before I ask Dr. Dachis to start, I will ask our
committee members to introduce themselves. I will start from Senator MacDonald.
Senator MacDonald: Michael MacDonald, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, from Quebec.
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez, from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Plett: Don Plett from Manitoba.
Senator D. Black: Douglas Black from Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Dawson: Dennis Dawson, from Quebec.
Senator Gagné: Raymonde Gagné, from Manitoba.
[English]
Senator Sinclair: Murray Sinclair from Manitoba.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you all.
I will ask Mr. Dachis to commence, please.
Benjamin Dachis, Associate Director of Research, C.D.
Howe Institute: Thank you so much for the
invitation. It is always a pleasure to come here to speak with our important
committees and, in particular, this one.
We all know the Trans Mountain saga by now with Kinder
Morgan, the proposed pipeline operator of the pipeline from Alberta to the B.C.
coast wanting certainty by May 31 or else it threatens to walk away from
the project. The result would be stranding Alberta’s oil. Now there is talk of
the federal government taking steps to ensure that it is built. Let us take a
look at some of the options today.
Right now, we are discussing a bill from Senator Black
that would open up some of those options. I want to put some meat on the bones
of what such action should look like and, in particular, what will be necessary
in terms of financial support from the government to get this built.
If you look back to the last great national pipeline
debate in the 1950s, federal financial support was indeed decisive for building
the cross-country natural gas pipeline that we have today.
The federal government has committed to making the
project happen, but we don’t yet have legislation — at least coming from the
house yet. There is just talk in the press so far. I will argue that federal
support is the right idea and that Ottawa just happens to have just the shiny
tool to make this happen, which is the Canada Infrastructure Bank, which I
spoke about last time I was here before the committee. The government has
approved construction of the pipeline and has said it will use all tools
available to get the pipeline built. One of those tools should be the Canada
Infrastructure Bank.
The Alberta government has even mused about buying the
pipeline from Kinder Morgan to ensure it gets built. Both governments want to
see the project built, for good reason. A pipeline to tidewater will increase
the price that Canadian oil fetches because of the severe Alberta supply glut,
and a new pipeline means a stronger Canadian economy and higher government
revenues.
What is the case for the government itself stepping in
to make sure the pipeline is built?
Kinder Morgan doesn’t care about the revenues that
governments would forgo or the jobs that will be lost if its pipeline stalls.
All that Kinder Morgan cares about is making money on its investments. With
costs rising due to delays caused by the B.C. government, Kinder Morgan’s
prospect of making money is starting to look pretty dicey. That creates a
disconnect between the private incentive for a business and what’s best for
society.
Governments step in to deal with negative costs to
society all the time, like pollution, that businesses otherwise wouldn’t pay
for. First, you see pipeline safety regulations that prevent spills and also a
tax on emissions from polluters. These kinds of steps make society better off
by adding costs on to businesses.
Governments should also step in to remove costs from
business to increase the social benefit that a business wouldn’t see in their
bottom line. That’s why the government should give some kind of support to
Kinder Morgan. Remember, the federal government is best placed to reduce the
cost of risk that Kinder Morgan faces because of the actions of the British
Columbia government. The question now is how.
First, governments should not be in the pipeline
business.
Senator Plett: Hear, hear.
Mr. Dachis: Adding a political lens to daily operating and building decisions will
bog down the project. We don’t want that. Nor should government support be
unlimited. If Kinder Morgan demands too much, then the government should walk
away.
How will we know if the government is going to get a
good deal? This is where the Canada Infrastructure Bank can potentially play a
valuable role. It was established in June 2017, and it is a:
Crown corporation that uses federal support to attract
private-sector and institutional investment to new revenue-generating
infrastructure projects in, or partly within, Canada that are in the public
interest.
First, is the pipeline in the public interest?
Absolutely. The federal government approval made that clear. A
revenue-generating project? Absolutely. The pipeline will clearly be self-financing
and not require any kind of long-term ongoing government support once built.
As Trevor Tombe has argued in an opinion
article a few weeks ago, the best option would be a short-term loan just
during the construction phase, not an equity investment, a loan that would be
repaid at the end of the construction and would offer support during the most
politically risky periods of the pipeline project. After that, the bank can and
should cash out.
The bank has the legislative power as well to offer
Kinder Morgan the kinds of support that make the most economic sense. It should
be the bank instead of politicians that negotiates with Kinder Morgan to make
sure taxpayers get a good deal.
Tasking the bank with this project can also help solve
another problem, which has been the painfully slow appointment of leadership at
the bank. It has been nearly a year since the legislation that created it
passed, and there is still no CEO in place. Tasking the Canada Infrastructure
Bank with structuring an agreement with Kinder Morgan will help light a fire
under both the government and the board to get on with setting it up.
In conclusion, we must remember that the dilemma
Kinder Morgan is facing is a good example of why the Canada Infrastructure Bank
was a good idea. It is a socially worthwhile infrastructure project that got
bogged down by risks that only a government, particularly the federal
government, can step in to solve. The government can kill two birds with one
stone by ramping up the bank quickly to support the construction of the Trans
Mountain pipeline.
With that, I can turn it over to Jack, if he is with
us, or take questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. He is not with us, so I will move on to questions.
Senator Plett: Thank you for being here this morning, Mr. Dachis.
I read with interest this morning that although the
B.C. government is doing everything they can to oppose this, they certainly
know where to invest their pension funds. They are investing them in Kinder
Morgan and a number of other related industries. Even though they want to
oppose certain pipelines coming across, they know that Kinder Morgan is a
pretty good company to invest money in. However, that is a comment, not a
question.
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has
disputed the idea of the Trans Mountain expansion project being in the national
interest and has suggested that the economic benefits of the project accrue
disproportionately in Alberta. In your view, why is this project in the
national interest?
Mr. Dachis: It’s the fact that the project is going to be mainly in B.C. and the
project benefits will be in another province. By its nature, that’s an
interprovincial benefit, which automatically makes it a federal project. When
you have this kind of cross-border interprovincial policy or interprovincial
transportation link, right from the very foundation of this country, the
federal government has had clear authority over these kinds of projects because
these kinds of interjurisdictional issues can only be solved by the federal
government when it has gone through proper approval and channels for it to be seen
through that lens as being in the national interest. It has gone through that
lens. We are now at the point where it is about enforcing the law of the land
of a project that the government has deemed to be in the national interest.
Senator Plett: I may or may not have understood your presentation entirely correctly,
so I will ask a question that you may have answered in your remarks. You
commented that Kinder Morgan’s main objective is to make money for their
shareholders, and any organization should rightly want to make money for their
shareholders. Did you suggest in your comments that the government, instead of
Kinder Morgan, should be building this pipeline?
Mr. Dachis: No. Far from it. We do not want the government owning and operating a
pipeline. That is not at all the best option.
What does make sense is limited forms of financial
support. When there is a risk that a company is facing because of, say,
expropriation, effectively, by the British Columbia government, only the
federal government can step in with the proper jurisdiction to support that
company, both through legal remedies and financial support. We have seen it
before with loans, for example. A loan would be by far the best option rather
than some kind of equity investment.
Senator Plett: I see that Mr. Mintz is with us now, so I may have a question for
him later.
The Deputy Chair: Dr. Mintz, welcome. I am glad you were able to connect with us. I
introduced you before you were here, so I will ask you to make your
presentation now and then we will continue with questions.
Jack Mintz, President’s Fellow at the University of
Calgary’s School of Public Policy, as an individual: Thank you very much. First, my apologies, but those
were the technical issues of the day.
The Deputy Chair: We understand those.
Mr. Mintz: I want to remind you that, unfortunately, I have a hard stop at 10:15.
From here, I must run off to something at 11 o’clock, so I am afraid I have to
stop at that point.
The Deputy Chair: We appreciate that, and everyone is aware of it.
Mr. Mintz: Thank you. I will be brief.
I am not quite sure what my colleague Ben Dachis said,
but I will reiterate three points that a number of people have said but which I
have also written about myself. The building of the Trans Mountain pipeline raises
three very important issues.
The first is an economic issue, one in which more
pipeline capacity would allow us to shrink the discount that is currently going
on. That discount is costing the Canadian economy now $13 billion, as estimated
by Kent Fellows at the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary. Of
that, $7 billion goes to the provincial government in Alberta, although there
is also a cost to the Saskatchewan government. There is also a loss of almost
$1 billion to the federal government, as well as roughly a bit more than $4
billion to private producers.
Of course, it is not the corporations that are
producing. Some are foreign, like Imperial Oil, of which I am a member, but
many others are involved and invested in the oil and gas industry, including
pension funds. Interestingly, in terms of pension funds, that includes the B.C.
government itself. They lose money as well, as do workers and other people.
This is a huge economic cost, and it is ongoing if we continue what we are doing
in terms of pipeline capacity.
The second issue is that our international reputation
of being able to get things done is being harmed right now by our inability to
achieve a regulatory system in which resource development can take place in
this country while, at the same time, we deal with the environmental issues, as
we have been doing through various other policies. I am concerned that our
inability on the regulatory side to get things done is a huge cost that will
make it more difficult for businesses to raise capital here in Canada in later
years.
The third point is that this issue is creating immense
regional conflict, with potential impacts on the development of Canada over the
next several years, in which a region may feel alienated from the rest. We know
from experience that when regions feel alienated and one region is fighting
another region in this country, that can have a difficult and problematic
impact on the Canadian economy and on the politics of this country. We must
make sure we get these issues resolved soon.
For that reason, the federal bill or some major bill
taken by the government that would ensure that this pipeline gets built and
follows through with the constitutional responsibility of the federal
government over interprovincial transportation is essential.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. Senator Plett, you said you had one more question for
Mr. Mintz, and then we will move on.
Senator Plett: Yes, a brief one for Mr. Mintz.
In a short version, please give me an answer as to —
and you talked about some of this — regional interest. We have Energy East
being stopped by Quebec in moving Alberta oil to the eastern shores, and we
have British Columbia stopping it from moving to the west. At what point does
the federal government just simply say, “Listen, provinces, this is our
jurisdiction. Step aside. We’re going to do what’s best for the entire
country”?
Mr. Mintz: This is a difficult area of federalism, as we have known for many years,
but the federal government does have certain constitutional responsibility
under section 91. It was given the right over canals, which was
transportation, and other things. We know the federal government has that
responsibility. Of course, there is shared responsibility with the provinces
over environmental issues, but at some point the federal government has to
exert its authority. As Dwight Newman has expressed — and I understand you will
be seeing him — there is a certain paramountcy the federal government can at
times push in terms of its responsibility that can override provincial
legislation.
Senator Plett: Thank you.
Senator Galvez: Thank you very much, Dr. Mintz, for being with us today. Those were
interesting statements.
I am not a lawyer. I don’t understand all the bills
and the laws that will make a project in the interest of Canada. However, I do
understand the mediation concept and getting to reconciliation because of human
resources issues and environmental negotiation. When you want to look for
success in reconciliation and conciliation, you do things privately instead of
publicly, and offer incentives rather than coercion. When you want a
negotiation to succeed, you have to do it in private and you have to offer
incentives. We all agree that we have to come to a resolution. We all know we
want to find conciliation, but the problem is how. By putting this bill out,
it’s public and coercive. How can we ensure the success of our debate and good
terms for everyone?
Mr. Mintz: I would agree with you that it would be better to have some sort of
agreement where all parties will stand down. In fact, I think that is a way
that we have solved issues in the past. This is kind of like a game theory
issue, and when you are having negotiations, sometimes you have to have a
credible threat. Perhaps this bill would make it very clear that if the federal
government had to move to a coercive situation, it has that ability to do that.
That might be the one argument for the bill itself.
In my experience working during the Chrétien/Martin
years at Finance, I have seen deals made where we have been able to get
cooperation between federal and provincial governments on an issue. There are
usually a number of things that have to be developed.
You are absolutely right; these are things done
through mediation, quietly and in the background. This probably should have
been done a year ago when it came to this issue. It is unfortunate that Kinder
Morgan had to finally pull the plug because of the costs involved with delay
after delay and the fact that protesters could be so close to the fence where
they were trying to move ahead with the construction that has already been
approved.
The B.C. government certainly has not helped here, but
I think perhaps there is an opportunity for negotiation to get a deal.
Unfortunately, B.C. has put itself in a position where it is more difficult now
to get a deal because it has been so public in its approach. Hopefully, we can
still get a deal made where B.C. will get some things that will be helpful to
them, including, for example, the clear type of processes that are needed to
ensure there isn’t a spill or there is full coverage by the federal government
of any cost of that spill. That would be the preferable thing to do at this
point, and for Trans Mountain to go ahead with its construction.
Senator Gagné: I was wondering, Mr. Mintz, what would be the consequences of the
federal government using the declaratory power? As you said, you see it as
coercive in nature. What would be the consequences of using that declaratory
power?
Mr. Mintz: It would be very negative because you are forcing an issue, if it was
invoked and followed through without any further consultation. Again, this is a
question of whether we want to use this as part of a tool box to try to get the
two sides together, to try and come to some agreement between the federal
government and B.C. about moving ahead with Trans Mountain. There will still be
opposition that will come from various groups in British Columbia. The only
other course is effectively for the pipeline to be withdrawn. However, that
will have negative impacts as well. A resolution is good, but the fact that one
may back off from the possibility of using that declaratory power may not necessarily
be an advantage because it undercuts potentially the ability of the federal
government to move ahead in a different way.
[Translation]
Senator Gagné: Madam Chair, shall we put questions to Mr. Mintz first, and then to
Mr. Dachis?
[English]
Mr. Dachis, can the government use the
infrastructure bank without passing Bill S-245? It is of federal
jurisdiction. Would that be the preference in this situation?
Mr. Dachis: That would be my preference. My preference would be for the government
to apply as few political lenses as possible to every decision along the way.
The bank has legislation in place. It just needs to get set up. The only thing
the bank would need federal approval for is a loan guarantee, but that
shouldn’t be too much of a problem given that the federal government has come
out and said this is the kind of project it would provide financial support
for. The federal government, through the Infrastructure Bank, has every
possible tool available to provide the financial aspect of any kind of backing,
so I see that as being absolutely independent of any kind of constitutional
challenge.
The Deputy Chair: I will suggest, given that Dr. Mintz has just shy of 20 minutes,
that perhaps we focus the questions first on Dr. Mintz and then come back
around.
Senator Sinclair: Thank you, Dr. Mintz. I want to ask a question that you might be
able to help us with. Based upon your analysis, experience and the work you
have done, have you looked at the question of what the cost to Canada would be
if the environmental impact of the tar sands is not addressed soon? Do you have
a view on that?
Mr. Mintz: Yes. First, you have to ask the question: Exactly what are the
environmental impacts? With respect to the use of land, we know that companies
have to put money aside in a trust fund and then they have to reclaim the land
after they finish with their production or depletion of their reserve. One can
go see, for example, the Syncrude reclamation that has been done with respect
to its open pit mining. You can go watch the buffalo running around the trees
and everything else. It has been completely restored. We have already dealt
with that issue quite appropriately in Canada, and probably better than many
other countries around the world.
With respect to other issues, particularly greenhouse
gas emissions, the new oil sands projects have brought down greenhouse gas
emissions. When you look at the total greenhouse gas emissions of a barrel of
oil sold in the United States, oil sands is no higher than the average landed oil
that falls into the United States. That is because there have been new
technologies that have been adopted, particularly with respect to in situ
developments of oil sands where greenhouse gas emissions are the worst. These
new developments — for example, SAGD, Vapex and other new approaches — have
reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 20, 30, 40 per cent, depending on
the type of technology, as a result of the changes they have made.
Oil sands themselves, at least with respect to these
two issues, have not been any more problematic than what you would find from
oil coming from anywhere else in the world at this time.
Regarding the issues around water, a lot of
regulations have been done. In fact, oil sands plants now recycle water so
there is not as much taking of water, et cetera. We are exaggerating a bit
the environmental impact of the oil sands as worse than anywhere in the world.
That is just not true. We have been very responsible in Canada through our
regulatory system and the actions taken by private producers to minimize the
environmental impact as much as possible.
Senator Sinclair: The issue that you have raised and the answer that you have given makes
me wonder whether you have been talking at all or if you have ever talked to
the First Nations people in the area about the impact of the tar sands
development upon their lives.
Mr. Mintz: Yes. Actually, I happen to know the chief of Fort McKay, and he will
give you a very positive view of the impact of oil sands on their lives, and
there are a number of others who have done that as well.
Senator MacDonald: It’s good to see you again, Dr. Mintz. I have a couple of
questions.
In regard to our approach in this country to the
approval of pipelines, it’s always been a bit of an ad hoc approach. It’s always
been my contention that one of the major omissions in this country has been the
establishment of a national energy corridor to the West and East Coasts,
particularly to Prince Rupert and Point Tupper. I’m curious what your opinion
is on that and if you could perhaps comment on that.
Mr. Mintz: Actually, I’m of the view that we need to seriously take a new approach
to infrastructure approvals in this country. If you look at the World Bank
study that’s been done on issues related to the cost of doing business across
190 countries in the world, in Canada we do some things very well. We actually
run a pretty good tax system in terms of keeping compliance costs down. We’re
one of the top 10 in the world. I can vouch for that from my own experience
working around the world.
However, there are certain areas, especially related
to infrastructure, where we have a horrible record. We’re 120 out of 190
countries. There are Third World countries that do better than us. There are
three areas in particular where we rank very poorly. One is the time taken to get
a permit; the second is the time taken to complete contracts; and the third is
getting goods to tidewater. That’s not just oil and gas and pipelines; it’s a
number of other things.
So I’ve been a proponent of a proposal to follow
through with the kind of work that’s done in a number of other countries — like
Australia, which has a much better record than us in these areas — where we
would have, let’s say, something like a northern corridor, where you get a
corridor that has all the pre-approvals and deals with all the difficult issues
that we deal with, such as making sure that First Nations are consulted and
properly treated in discussions, general environmental issues and things like
that. In the corridor, you can then build electric transmission lines, highways
and pipelines, although they will each be subject to an approval process with
respect to their unique aspects that would still be required to be regulated
and properly assessed. Australia uses the corridor concept quite a bit, and in
fact you just need to talk to Canadian companies that invest in Australia, for
example, in electrical transmission. It takes seven or eight months to get an
approval for an electrical transmission line in Australia, while it could take
years in Canada.
So I think we need to really figure out how we could
do these things better. I’m afraid the new environmental assessment act that’s
being proposed is not going to accomplish that. In fact, it itself has so many
unknown uncertainties that it will probably make it very difficult to have any
resource development take place in Canada with this kind of regulatory system
that’s being proposed by that act.
Senator MacDonald: I have a follow-up question in regard to the National Energy Board. We
all recall when Energy East pipeline was sandbagged with new regulations and
asks put on the National Energy Board. At the end of this process, it was like
the National Energy Board’s integrity was itself called into question. I’m
curious about your opinion on the conduct of the National Energy Board and how
they’ve done their work over the past number of years. They seem to have a good
international reputation; however, their reputation seems to be under attack in
their own country.
Mr. Mintz: First of all, from what I understand — and I won’t say I’m a complete
expert on this because I’m not involved in talking to regulators around the
world — but my understanding is that the National Energy Board, over the years,
has been very highly respected. Certainly they’ve made all sorts of decisions
that have gone well. We have to remember that we’ve had very few pipeline
spills. We haven’t had a mess, actually, on the regulatory side in terms of
giving approvals where there have been serious problems that evolved as a
result. I think we can be proud of what they achieved.
I think Energy East was a combination of moving the
goalposts, particularly changing the terminal, which started pushing up the
costs quite a bit for Energy East; and then later on changing, in the middle of
the game, the rules with respect to how environmental impacts were going to be
assessed. There were some mistakes made by the National Energy Board in terms
of some of the political things that happened during that time, but generally
that shouldn’t be a criticism of its overall function for many years, where
it’s done a very good job.
Let’s face it: There are people who oppose the oil
sands simply because they just don’t want to see any more resource development
in Canada, for whatever environmental reasons. That’s totally opposite to
what’s happening around the world, where resource development is taking place
and the governments are still addressing the environmental issues.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Dr. Mintz.
Are there any other questions for Dr. Mintz? If
not, I will thank you very much and let you get on to your next appointment.
We’ll carry on with questions to Dr. Dachis. You’re welcome to join us
until you have to leave.
Mr. Mintz: Thank you very much.
Senator Sinclair: Mr. Dachis, I wanted to ask you a question about the economic
consequences of an oil spill in the Vancouver Harbour area. You’ve done a study
on the economic consequences of the tar sands development and the pipeline
itself?
Mr. Dachis: No, I have not done any studies on the cost of spills, but it would
definitely be bad.
Senator Sinclair: Do you have any information that you can point us to that would tell us
something about that?
Mr. Dachis: Not off the top of my head, no.
Senator Sinclair: Earlier I asked a question about the economic impact of the
environmental issues around the tar sands in northern Alberta. Maybe you can
tell me what you have to say about that.
Mr. Dachis: I agree with Jack, which is that the oil sands are a critical part of
the Canadian economy. When it comes to the economic costs of not building
pipelines, they’re numerous.
Just to give one concrete example, the Government of
Alberta has done studies that have shown that keeping Alberta’s oil stranded in
the province and not getting the highest price in the world market costs it
about $1.8 billion in royalties every year. That $1.8 billion in royalties
means fewer social services for Albertans and less money for health care and
schools. These kinds of projects that enable the Province of Alberta to get
more revenue are critical for our daily lives.
Senator Sinclair: My question was really not related to that answer. My question is what
are the costs of continuing to do what we’re doing in the North?
Mr. Dachis: When it comes to environmental impacts, we have to remember what the best
approach is. When it comes to greenhouse gas emissions, in almost every
circumstance, the best approach to dealing with these costs is greenhouse gas
pricing, carbon pricing, either a carbon tax or a cap and trade program. The
global atmosphere does not give one hoot as to whether a gram or a tonne of
carbon dioxide comes from the oil sands or a steel mill in Hamilton or a
vehicle’s emissions in Halifax. What matters at the end of the day is the total
amount of emissions from around the world that lead to climate change.
A carbon tax has an impressive way of finding the
kinds of emissions reductions that make the most sense to the overall economy.
It makes sense for us to reduce, say, the amount of steel production in
Hamilton, or have people in Halifax to drive a little bit less, because if the
economic value of producing oil from northern Alberta, or anywhere in Alberta,
is that much higher, then guess what? It makes sense for us to keep producing
oil.
Senator McCoy: If I could follow up on your reply to the question about an oil spill in
the harbour, on what are you basing your opinion that it would be a bad spill?
Mr. Dachis: Any spill of oil is a bad thing.
Senator McCoy: Is it? Even if it’s just one quart?
Mr. Dachis: Any spill gets attention, and we get a lot of the discussion about the
number of spills, even if they’re small. Governments do step in to introduce
regulation.
Senator McCoy: Is this in part — I’m sorry to interrupt.
Mr. Dachis: That's fine. Governments step in to put in place the kinds of policies
that will reduce, not 100 per cent eliminate, the likelihood of every
possible spill. It gets to a point where the cost of dealing with a small risk
of spill at every single point of the way is higher than the economic benefit
of preventing that. But we here in Canada have an incredibly good record,
especially with pipelines, of preventing spills. Governments always try to step
in to stop spills or create regulations that prevent spills as much as
possible, but you can’t stop every single one of them. Obviously we don’t want
a major spill, and a lot of regulations that have been put in place are there
to prevent major spills.
Senator Galvez: Thank you, Dr. Dachis. I think your idea of using the
Infrastructure Bank for the construction of pipelines is an interesting idea.
It’s not yet well in place, so I don’t know how quickly it can be arranged. The
Kinder Morgan pipeline is very old and needs replacement, but the proponent
wants to triple the amount of oil that will come and is arguing that by getting
to tidewater we will be able to access the Asian market. To your knowledge,
have any contracts been discussed about what the price will be and how much oil
they will buy?
Mr. Dachis: I don’t know the details of what kinds of contracts oil shippers or oil
producers have gone into with Trans Mountain. It’s very clear that the demand
from oil shippers and buyers is there for this project and that oil will go to
the place where it makes the most economic sense.
Senator Galvez: I’m asking this because to declare a project to be in the interest of
Canada, there are some criteria. It has to be technically feasible,
environmentally safe, have commercial benefits, be inclusive of all the
stakeholders’ interest, and, of course, it has to touch several provinces. The
NEB only did technical feasibility and a commercial assessment from the Kinder
Morgan side. Kinder Morgan is going to make money; that’s clear. But the other
criteria, to my knowledge, are not there, because the agency didn’t make a
complete assessment on all the other aspects, as they were done, for example,
for other projects that were declared in the national interest of Canada.
Mr. Dachis: A National Energy Board and then a Governor-in-Council approval is, as
far as I know, the highest standard you can reach of asserting that a project
is in the national interest. The government is going to take that to the
voters. They decided that they’re willing to put their electoral necks on the
line in making that case. That is as pretty clear-cut a case as you can find of
something being in the national interest or the government establishing it as
being in the national interest.
Senator Plett: A question was posed by Senator Sinclair as to what the environmental
effects would be with an oil spill with oil coming from the oil sands of
Alberta. I didn’t know that they had tar sands; they have oil sands. If no more
pipelines get built, Alberta, Saskatchewan and even parts of Manitoba will
continue to try to get their oil to market. They will do it by rail or by
truck. It will obviously not be as economical and as efficient.
Mr. Dachis: Or as safe.
Senator Plett: Okay. That was going to be my question. You answered before I asked it.
In your opinion, what is the safest way of doing it?
Environmentally, what is the best way of doing it, aside from the fact that we
hopefully don’t have any spills? If we do have a spill and a train runs off the
rail, would that do almost as much damage as an oil spill would do?
Mr. Dachis: When it comes to environmental damage, I haven’t calculated those costs,
but we at the institute have done a couple of estimates of the value of rail in
that rail does have a value independent of pipeline constraints. We have to
remember that railways move grain but also oil, because pipelines go to a fixed
point. That fixed point ends up at a refinery and there are only a certain
number of pipelines. Rail offers companies more flexibility to be able to get
their oil to a variety of different buyers, and that creates competition and
actually a higher price for Alberta's oil, independent of the costs of supply
caused by pipelines. At the end of the day, however, you’re right that
pipelines are absolutely environmentally safer and have a broader economic
benefit.
Senator Sinclair: I find it ironic to have you here, Mr. Dachis, on behalf of the
C.D. Howe Institute, because of the history of pipelines in Canada. C.D. Howe
was the advocate of the TransCanada pipeline and led to the defeat of the
Liberal government in the 1950s because the Conservatives didn’t agree with the
TransCanada pipeline at that time. Now, of course, we have the Conservative
Party very much advocating for this particular pipeline. So the irony, of
course, is the flip-flopping that’s going on here.
I’m curious to ask you about whether or not you’ve had
an opportunity to consider the question of First Nations involvement in the
approval of the pipeline portion that’s running over their particular
territory.
Mr. Dachis: That’s a bigger question than something I’ve been able to look into.
It’s absolutely critical.
Senator Sinclair: Has the C.D. Howe Institute made any analysis in that area?
Mr. Dachis: Specifically to pipelines, no.
Senator Sinclair: Thank you.
Mr. Dachis: You’re right; it’s quite ironic. You go back to the pipeline debate in
1956, led by Mr. Howe, and you go back to how that pipeline got built for
the portion in Western Canada. The federal government at the time gave $80
million in a loan to the corporation, and guess what? It was paid back in full
the next year. That’s the kind of model that, if necessary for a project of
such national importance, can work.
Senator Sinclair: And the opposition from the Conservatives is because the product was
going to a Texas company.
Mr. Dachis: I won’t get into the politics of that one.
Senator MacDonald: I want to clarify one thing about the pipeline debate with C.D. Howe.
The issue was closure. That was the issue the Conservatives fought over in the
1950s. The issue was about closure. I want to put that on the record.
Senator Sinclair: You were there?
Senator MacDonald: I wasn’t there, but I know the issue.
The Deputy Chair: On that note, I think our questions have come to a close.
Mr. Dachis, I’d like to thank you very much for your testimony and for
being with us this morning and addressing the questions.
Honourable senators, as we continue our study on
Bill S-245, I’d like to welcome Mr. Dwight Newman, Professor of Law
and Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Rights in Constitutional and
International Law at the University of Saskatchewan.
Professor Newman, thank you for joining our
deliberations today. I will invite you now to start your presentation. As you
know, following that, senators will have a number of questions.
Dwight Newman, Professor of Law and Canada Research
Chair in Indigenous Rights in Constitutional and International Law, University
of Saskatchewan, as an individual: Good morning. I’m honoured to speak with the committee on this important
matter related to Bill S-245. As has been mentioned, I’m a law professor
at the University of Saskatchewan. I’m sorry I couldn’t join you today in
Ottawa. I’m in Toronto speaking at the Canadian Energy Law Forum in a few
hours.
I carry out a broad program of research, with a
significant part of it focused on the nexus between constitutional law and
resource development, constitutional law including, very significantly,
Indigenous rights.
We are going to have a fair amount of time to address
the matters that may be of interest to you, if you wish to ask a lot of
questions. In my opening minutes, I will highlight several points that I set
out in my written brief. I want to focus particularly on three key points.
First, the use of the federal declaratory power in
section 92(10)(c) is indeed constitutionally available for the Trans
Mountain project if Parliament wishes to use it. On many past occasions, it has
been used in instances involving interprovincial or international projects as
well as projects within a province. I list some examples in the footnotes
within my written brief just to establish that point. Many of these uses were
in the context of what is sometimes called “private legislation” focused on
rights of particular parties or on particular projects, and that kind of
legislation has often originated in the Senate, as I also set out in the brief.
It’s not unusual that this sort of a bill, using the declaratory power, would
originate in the Senate. The declaratory power hasn’t been used that much
recently, but it has been actively used in the context of nuclear regulation
even in current times.
Second, the use of the declaratory power in this bill
would offer symbolic clarity that Parliament is taking full legislative
jurisdiction over the Trans Mountain project. Those sorts of legislative steps
should not be necessary, but in the present circumstances they seem to be. The
constitutional effect of a declaration under section 92(10)(c) can vary
based on features of the legislation in which it is used, and that legal
principle is found in a complex 1993 Supreme Court of Canada decision in the
Ontario Hydro v. Ontario (Labour Relations Board) case concerning the use
of the declaratory power in the nuclear context. The intent of Bill S-245,
as I read it, is to clarify exclusive federal jurisdiction on the Trans
Mountain pipeline, and it would contribute to doing that.
Third, in several pieces I have written recently on
the Trans Mountain project, I have actually suggested that Parliament could
provide more legal certainty with legislative steps that go beyond symbolism.
By establishing a set of regulatory powers over the pipeline that clearly
created what’s known as a complete code in the constitutional context,
Parliament would benefit from the constitutional doctrine of federal
paramountcy, under which any provincial regulation in the same area would be
overridden because of a conflict between the federal legislation and the
provincial regulation.
In my written brief, I derive some sample regulatory
provisions from past uses of the declaratory power and suggest that those could
be the type of thing that could be included in Bill S-245. There would be
better drafting than what I’ve offered there. They are based very much on the
old drafting style. But, of course, all of the resources of the Justice
Department could be brought to bear if there were a follow-through on the
commitment of the government to legislate steps to provide certainty for the
pipeline. If things have to progress from the Senate, the Senate will have to
do what it can do with Bill S-245.
In any event, Canada does have the legislative powers
to get this project done if there’s the will to do so. With that, I would
conclude these remarks and simply open myself up to questions on the
constitutional dimensions related to the declaratory power in Bill S-245.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Newman.
Senator Sinclair: Hello, Mr. Newman.
My question to you has to do with your other area of
expertise, or perhaps a related area of expertise, and that is Aboriginal
rights in the petroleum industry or the resource industry generally and the
impact that could be had with regard to the exercise of the right to
consultation, the right to involvement. Have you had a chance to look at the
court cases that have been filed in the various courts by the First Nations
with regard to the failure of the National Energy Board to consult with them
properly or to consider their position properly in the process of approval?
Mr. Newman: Yes, indeed. I referenced those in the written brief and in my writing
on the Trans Mountain project of late. I’ve tried to emphasize that this is a
part that has been forgotten in a lot of the discussion. There’s a very
important discussion to have around the federal-provincial jurisdictional
issue, but there’s a very important part connected with those cases. Of course,
those were heard back at the Federal Court of Appeal in October and at the
British Columbia Supreme Court in November. There would have to be a hope that
those decisions come through. The court is best placed to assess all of the
complex evidence that was presented there, and hopefully those courts will
render those judgments. I would see it as vital that the government respect the
Indigenous rights dimensions, of course. It needs to be responsive to anything
that comes from those judgments.
Senator Sinclair: Whatever the courts say with regard to section 35 and the clarity
around what those rights might mean, would you agree with the suggestion that
any declaration that this is a work to the advantage of Canada and, therefore,
a federal undertaking that is subject to federal jurisdiction is still subject
to the section 35 rights of Indigenous people under the Constitution?
Mr. Newman: Yes. It is a statement about federal versus provincial jurisdiction.
Section 35 is a constraint in legal terms on both levels of government but
part of the cooperation within a diverse Canada.
Senator Sinclair: All right. Thank you very much.
Senator Galvez: Thank you. I think we are all aware that, as parliamentarians, we have
the power to declare a project of national interest, but I think the question
is when to use this card.
In this case, we have some questions. For example, I
mentioned to the previous witness that to ensure success in negotiation, it
should be individual, private, incentive-type negotiations instead of being
coercive and done in a public place or enforcing this type of bill.
In analyzing the global picture, it seems ironic to
declare a project of national interest by using a tool that will confront
provinces. Therefore, it is going against the unity of the country.
The other point I want you to comment on, has someone
evaluated the commercial cost of putting friction between provinces? What does
that do to the whole of Canada with losing money because we are putting
provinces in opposition to each other?
Mr. Newman: On the second point, I think I’d have to defer to the expertise of
economists in terms of the assessment of any costs that exist out of different
types of policies.
Speaking to the first point, I would simply say I
don’t see it as running counter to national unity for the federal government to
use its powers that are explicitly provided for it under the Constitution, and
this bill shouldn’t be necessary. Section 92(10)(a) already provides the
federal government with jurisdiction over interprovincial transportation and
communications, obviously the area in which this committee routinely works.
There are a lot of constitutional doctrines that back up the exercise of powers
under that power.
However, in the present circumstances, there seems to
be a lot of questioning of that area of federal jurisdiction, phrased very
indirectly at times. There have been statements put around whether Parliament
could use the declaratory power or not. I’ve tried to respond to some of those
here. If you agree that it’s very clear that Parliament can be — of course, I
am not questioning that, but there are people who have floated comments in the
press suggesting that it couldn't use it legally, so one of the things I am
saying is legally it can.
And, second, it is within the explicit powers of the
federal government, so I don’t think that is an interference with national
unity. I think it is actually a carrying out of the constitutional purposes
that the federal government can construct interprovincial transportation
infrastructure.
Senator Galvez: I think you are aware, because it has been all over the media, that the
provinces are already threatening each other with commercial bans and
limitations. I think it is pretty evident that they are already in a
confrontational situation.
Will this bill, or the one that is being put in the
other chamber, which I think has the same type of purpose, at the end
accomplish this? Will it accelerate this and give the results that some portion
of the population seems to want, which is the construction of this pipeline?
Mr. Newman: I think this bill provides an environment of legal certainty for the
project. Now, there are a lot of other factors that come into play in terms of
what happens from here. Certainly, if a province decides to continue to
disregard the rule of law, at that point there would be complexities that
arise. If there are protesters who disregard the rule of law in some
manner, all kinds of things could happen. It is not my place is to speculate on
that. I am speaking simply to the reality that this bill would provide a legal
certainty for the project, and things would have to develop from there in terms
of the more political dimensions.
Senator Galvez: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: If there are no other questions on first round, I will move to second
round.
Senator Sinclair: That was quick. You have either provided all the answers, professor, or
else no one can understand what you have said, so let me see if I can help
here.
We have already discussed the impact on the
relationship between section 35 and the declaratory power generally, but
the court cases that are before the court clearly raise the question of whether
or not the duty to consult has actually been met, particularly those cases that
have been filed by the First Nations. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Newman: That’s one of the principal issues raised in those cases before the
courts.
Senator Sinclair: In the case law to this point in time with regard to the issue, the
Supreme Court in a couple of decisions appears to have said — maybe you can
comment on this — that projects should not be allowed to proceed until the duty
to consult has been met.
My question goes to this. If that is the case, the
court decisions clearly raise that question, and that is an open question for
the courts to decide. How will we then reconcile the fact that the pipeline
proponents — Kinder Morgan, in particular — seem to have put so much money into
the ground to get this pipeline to the point where they are now saying they
will not spend any more money if consultation may not, in fact, have been
completed?
Mr. Newman: That is an immensely complicating feature to our present regulatory
environment, that companies are being expected to spend $500 million or $1
billion and not have knowledge of whether there might be some other issue that
comes up by surprise. We saw that certainly with the Northern Gateway decision,
where the Federal Court of Appeal, after the project proponent had spent $500
million, ruled that there was still further consultation that needed to be
done. With a change of government, the new government decided not to go ahead
with that further consultation that would have been required.
In this instance, the two courts are best placed to
assess all of the evidence that has been put forth before them. They will have
to make that assessment. If they determine that there were inadequacies in
consultation, presumably the remedy would be that more consultation would be
carried out. The government would need to carry that out in good faith if it wishes
to potentially proceed with the project and would need to consider that further
consultation, what came from it and, if necessary, accommodations that arose.
Right now we are speculating about a court decision
that might or might not come. The government’s view, certainly that it has
articulated, is that it has carried out extensive engagement and consultation.
The government has tried to learn lessons from the Northern Gateway decision
and the judgment in that case in order to improve the consultation process that
was carried out on this project in response to that. It is possible that the
government might well win those cases. That remains to be seen, depending upon
the court’s assessment of the evidence in those cases.
Senator Sinclair: Yes. They haven’t won them yet.
In the Carrier Sekani case, which you
reference, and the Clyde River case, which you also reference in your
material, the courts seem to say that until consultation has been completed or
the consent of the First Nations involved has been received — so in either case
— if consultation is not yet completed, the project cannot be deemed to be in
the public interest. Do you agree with that statement?
Mr. Newman: There certainly have been court statements that a project shouldn’t
proceed until consultation has been completed, although there may be continuing
consultation during construction. I think that is a positive thing where that
bears on elements of the project proceeding.
A sufficient consultation related to the approval of
the project needs to have occurred before a project is approved and proceeds.
That said, that assessment is initially in the hands of government, subject to
a court challenge. If the government’s view is that it has carried out that
consultation, it could authorize a project to proceed without having a court
hearing in every case.
The duty to consult today is triggered in Canada
several hundred thousand times a year. Most of those instances see projects
proceed, without controversy, with good consultation. There are certainly times
where consultation efforts should be critiqued, but in many cases we see good
consultation efforts proceed. We see many instances of agreement with
Indigenous communities. We can’t have a court proceeding in every instance, and
governments are entitled to proceed subject, of course, to a court challenge.
In this case, there are court challenges, and it is very important that those
be heard and decided.
Senator Sinclair: I may be the only member of this committee that is interested in
continuing this conversation ad nauseam.
Concerning the degree to which there may still
continue to be provincial jurisdiction remaining even after the declaration
that this bill appears to authorize, in the Ontario Hydro case, for
example, I think the Supreme Court of Canada put a significant limitation upon
the federal jurisdiction to regulate and control only those workers in the
industry who actually were involved on behalf of Ontario Hydro in the nuclear
component of their work, and that they didn’t necessarily impact upon those who
were involved in the project who were not involved in the nuclear component. Do
you have a comment to make with regard to the limitation on the federal
undertaking jurisdiction and the ongoing possibility of provincial jurisdiction
here?
Mr. Newman: Thank you for the attention to the Indigenous issues because those are
vital to continue bringing to attention here.
On this question about the Ontario Hydro
decision, I will say it is a complex judgment. There is a three- to
three-to-one type split, which never enhances the clarity of a Supreme Court of
Canada judgment when you see that kind of split. I would read the combination
of the two judgments in the majority to imply that the consequences of a use of
the declaratory power depend on the particular intentions spelled out in the
legislation in that instance. In the instance involved in that case, the
effects were subject to some limits.
In Bill S-245, one might read a broader intention
and one might read the legislation as further displacing provincial
jurisdiction that might otherwise have existed through the intention to use the
federal jurisdiction.
That said, that would be clearer if there were
additional provisions added to the legislation. They might or might not take
the form I have included in the written brief, but something that would set out
more of a federal covering of the field, as it were, in the context of the
project would further use the doctrine of federal paramountcy. In the case of a
conflict between a federal law and a provincial law, even where they are both
entitled to enact the legislation, federal paramountcy says that, to the extent
of any conflict, the federal legislation takes priority and the provincial
legislation then doesn’t operate to the extent of that inconsistency.
In some of my recent writing on Trans Mountain, that
is the sort of approach I have suggested as a legislative path forward, being
very precise about the federal-provincial issue if the federal government
wishes to assert its powers. That doesn’t deal, of course, with the
section 35 issues, which are an additional set of legal issues.
Senator Sinclair: I found that very exciting.
The Deputy Chair: I am glad.
Senator D. Black: Dr. Newman, thank you very much for being available and for the
detailed work you have done to be of assistance to us.
I read, from what Senator Sinclair, my esteemed
colleague, is suggesting, that, in his view, consultation is not complete until
there is consent. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Newman: I don’t know if that is what he has articulated or not. That’s not what
I heard in his question of a moment ago.
Senator Sinclair: It is an interesting question.
Mr. Newman: If he were to make that assertion, or if someone else were to make that
assertion, I would say that consent certainly seems to be able to substitute
for consultation. If consent is achieved, that may replace the need for
consultation. That is the structure under which we are operating in the context
of impact benefit agreements negotiated between industry and Indigenous
communities very routinely. There is reference to that idea in the Tsilhqot'in
decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2014, as well, that if there is
consent, that effectively resolves all the issues.
Nothing in what the Supreme Court of Canada has said
thus far suggests that consent is the requirement under consultation other than
possibly in some very limited circumstances. Consent is the standard
requirement in the case of an established Aboriginal title area. That is not
surprising. Where it is established that someone owns land, the usual standard
for someone else to use that land would be consent. Apart from that
circumstance, there has been no suggestion that consent is the general
standard. Consultation varies across the spectrum. It is a complicated doctrine
as to what exactly is required under it. The current state of Canadian law does
not seem to reflect a requirement of consent.
Senator D. Black: Thank you very much, Dr. Newman.
The Deputy Chair: Are there any other questions or comments?
Senator Sinclair: I am tempted. You will hear a lot about this as we go forward, let me
assure you. Tomorrow we have a panel from First Nations leaders who will speak
to us about this question, but generally the issue of consent is one that they
will raise.
Are you familiar with the United Nations Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and its endorsement by Canada?
Mr. Newman: Yes, I am.
Senator Sinclair: From a constitutional perspective, what do you think that endorsement
does to the existing state of the law in Canada, if anything?
Mr. Newman: There have been a couple of endorsements by Canada, of course. There was
an endorsement in part in 2010, and then there have been subsequent
endorsements in 2015 and 2016, more recently. Those have been phrased, to some
extent, in less qualified terms, or at least purported to be, although some
parts of the phrasing of the 2016 endorsement did refer to still carrying this
out in conformity with the Constitution of Canada.
In general terms, those endorsements themselves don’t
have any particular legal effect. They do represent a commitment by Canada, and
at the policy level, going beyond the constitutional context, there are
questions in terms of how the government wishes to proceed given that it stated
itself to be seeking to conform to the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples.
There is another bill in progress through Parliament
concerning the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples,
Bill C-262. If adopted, that bill certainly has effect in relation to the
status of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
At this point, though, a description of the present
law would say that there has not been an incorporation on the UN Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into Canadian constitutional law. It has been
argued before the Supreme Court of Canada in many of the recent section 35
cases, and the court has never cited to it. That is it not to say they might
not in future, and then I would describe the law differently. Trying to
describe the present state of the law, I would say that at this point in time
it does not appear to be part of Canadian law.
This is a complex space, and it is certainly a space
in which, understandably, there is an enormous amount of advocacy around the UN
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. You know better than anyone,
the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in this regard.
It may be that that does lead to changes in Canadian law in the coming years,
but in trying to describe the present state of the law, I would say that has
not yet occurred.
Senator Sinclair: As I said, I could go on ad nauseam, chair, but I am prepared to
follow your lead if you wish. If you wish to end at this point, I am fine.
Senator Galvez: We still have time.
The Deputy Chair: We do still have time. Do you want to ask one more question or comment?
Senator Sinclair: I wish to pick up on the point you just made having to do with balancing
the interests at play here. If the interests of the pipeline are matched up
against the interests of Indigenous people as endorsed by the UN declaration
and the policy decision that Canada has made to endorse the UN declaration, how
do you see that coming out of the shaker?
Mr. Newman: Well, that’s a complicated question, of course.
Senator Sinclair: That is why I ask them.
Mr. Newman: I would tend not to phrase it in that way. I don’t think this should be
portrayed in oppositional terms, in the sense of here is Canada’s interest and
here are the interests of Indigenous peoples under the declaration. I think
there still needs to be room for a national interest or a public interest
within which Indigenous rights and respect for Indigenous rights is a very
important component. I think there could be different judgments reached,
frankly, by different people, depending on their view of particular aspects of
the declaration and its relation with what has occurred.
Regarding some key aspects of the declaration, the
legal interpretation of those is not yet clear, honestly. Something like free,
prior, and informed consent within the declaration is raised. There are at
least three different trends in terms of interpretation of what the free,
prior, and informed consent element of the UN Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples means in natural resource-type settings.
It is my understanding that the Justice Department
might be providing a perspective on that in the context of the hearings around
Bill C-262 in the coming week or weeks. That will be of interest in terms
of what the Department of Justice says in the Canadian context on how the
Justice Department is interpreting free, prior and informed consent within the
declaration.
There are a lot of complexities there. I wouldn’t try
to make an assessment offhand in terms of that question of considering the
declaration, how does one read the national interest? However, I think that is
a question that Parliament needs to squarely face as part of this. There is a
policy commitment there that needs to factor significantly into the overall
read of the national interest.
Senator Sinclair: Thank you, sir. Thank you, chair.
The Deputy Chair: If there are no other comments, I will thank you very much,
Mr. Newman, for being with us today.
Honourable senators, for our meeting tomorrow, we will
carry on with this theme. We have Chief Ian Campbell of Squamish Nation in
British Columbia and Chief Nathan Matthew of the Simpcw First Nation, which is
located both in B.C. and in Alberta — primarily in B.C. but it does have part
of its jurisdiction in Alberta as well.
I would also like to remind members that the committee
is expected to do clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-245 after
tomorrow’s Indigenous panel. If you intend to propose an amendment to this bill,
it is recommended that you seek the advice of the Office of the Law Clerk to
ensure your amendment is drafted in the proper format and in both official
languages. It is also helpful if you could send your amendment in advance to
the clerk of the committee so that sufficient copies will be available at the
meeting.
With that, honourable senators and Professor Newman,
thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)